For his part, Hogan has testified to suffering emotional harm, although his willingness to talk to Stern on the air about the video likely won’t help to convince jurors of the seriousness of that harm. The topic of damages attracted considerable attention on Monday when a jury awarded ESPN reporter Erin Andrews $55 million for emotional suffering caused by a peeping tom and a negligent hotel. Should Hogan establish that Gawker broke the law, he would be positioned to obtain monetary damages from the company, but he would face a difficult path proving that he suffered anywhere near $100 million in damages. U.S., Justice Potter Stewart reasoned that courts should steer clear of banning news unless it would “surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people.” Millions of people watching video of Hulk Hogan having sex is perhaps not especially good for the Nation, but it wouldn’t result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage, either. Supreme Court decision, New York Times Co. Gawker also feels emboldened by the fact that courts normally reject petitions to stop the publication of news. It’s not clear if the jury will be persuaded by such a distinction. Hogan responded that he was in character as the Hulk when speaking with Stern, whereas as Bollea, he was suffering on the inside. On cross-examination, Hogan was asked why, if the tape is such an uncomfortable topic for him, he would answer radio host Howard Stern’s questions about it. Will Erin Andrews be paid the $55M she was awarded in lawsuit?ĭuring the trial, Gawker’s attorneys have called attention to Hogan’s welcoming of public interest in his sex life. The more Hogan makes his private life a public matter, the harder it is for him to claim a compelling privacy interest. Hogan also invited the public to learn about his sex life in his 2009 autobiography, My Life Outside the Ring, in which he detailed his unfaithfulness as a husband. Recall how he and his family starred in the VH1 reality television show “Hogan Knows Best” from 2005 to '07. Hogan, for his part, seems to embrace the limelight and the public’s fascination with him. The public’s interest in Hogan’s video is not unusual for this celebrity. In his testimony this week, he claims to have suffered several emotional distress and also says he felt “completely humiliated” by the video, adding that the video is “still tearing me up.” Gawker removed the video in 2013 after Hogan obtained a temporary injunction, but an appeals court later reversed the injunction. Worse yet, Hogan contends, Gawker caused him massive psychological and reputational damage. Given the considerable Internet traffic Gawker received after posting the video, the company probably generated substantial revenue from it.
Hogan further insists that Gawker, by posting the video, misappropriated his right to publicity, which protects his persona-including his name and image-from commercial exploitation. New hope for Tom Brady? Rethinking the Deflategate appeal This is a fairly compelling argument so long as jurors believe that Hogan played no role in the video’s creation and distribution. “The verdict says no more.Hogan’s case is premised on a straightforward argument: Because the video was taken without his knowledge and consent, and because it captured a decidedly private activity in a bedroom, his privacy was unlawfully invaded. We think it represents a statement as to the public's disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism,” Hogan’s team said in a statement. “We're exceptionally happy with the verdict.
Former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan and his attorney Seema Ghatnekar prepare to take a break just after the jury was handed Hogan's case against Gawker Media for deliberations on Friday, March 18, 2016, in St.
"In its core this case has never, ever, ever been about anything more that Gawker took a secretly recorded sex tape of my client in a private bedroom performing a private act and put it on the internet," Turkel said, according to NBC affiliate WFLA. Hogan’s attorney Kenneth Turkel told the jury Gawker could have avoided the lawsuit if it would have simply taken down the video clip when first asked. "That’s why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately."
"I want to thank our lawyers for their outstanding work and am confident that we would have prevailed at trial if we had been allowed to present the full case to the jury," he said.